That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

Double berthing on New Glenn makes a lot of economic sense. New Glenn has a larger more expensive upper stage than F9/FH which puts a limit on how cheap they can offer launches. Double berthing keeps it economical compared to a pair of F9 launches, and puts more payload on orbit than a FH or Ariane 6.

Double berthing on New Glenn makes a lot of economic sense. New Glenn has a larger more expensive upper stage than F9/FH which puts a limit on how cheap they can offer launches. Double berthing keeps it economical compared to a pair of F9 launches, and puts more payload on orbit than a FH or Ariane 6.

They also will do singles at no additional charge if one of the customers causes delay, right now they are expecting a cadence of 8 flights per year, so they won't be able to spread overhead as much as SpaceX, which has probably influenced the design and operation decisions for New Glenn

New Shepard - I'm still surprised how rarely they physically test. It's been pointed out that they're probably validating models, but I'd think they'd have to up the cadence significantly as they approach opening for business.

Britain - As a Brit, I'll believe it when I see it it's been operating for a decade

P120C booster - I know solid boosters are pretty reliable, but it speaks much for (mainly) SpaceX and the reusability drive that I'm left thinking that they haven't really tested the booster so much as they've tested that one - and that can only bring so much confidence in any future freshly manufactured copy.

Just came across this really good article on SpaceX's upcoming recovery efforts, including a breakdown of all its current recovery vessels, what function each one has, and video of the upgraded Mr Steven (with larger net), maneuvering in the Pacific - in reverse!

I didn't know, for example, that each droneship is accompanied by two vessels: a tug boat and a crew ship that leave days ahead of the actual first stage recovery:

Quote:

Apart from the tugboats, a crew boat is also needed to support the droneship recoveries. These vessels house the crew needed to secure the rocket post-landing. The boats also gather telemetry from the booster. [...]

For a typical mission, the droneship will leave port 3-4 days in advance of the landing attempt. The tugboat typically pulls the ASDS at approximately 6-8 knots. The crew boat is capable of traveling at a faster 8-10 knots, and thus sometimes leaves port a few hours after the droneship.

New Shepard - I'm still surprised how rarely they physically test. It's been pointed out that they're probably validating models, but I'd think they'd have to up the cadence significantly as they approach opening for business.

Agreed on the cadence,though in absolute numbers the quantity of physical tests is high. That was the ninth launch of New Shepard, and the third that was permitted to carry a commercial payload (the first six flights were all officially "experimental" and thus weren't allowed to have paying customers). Using SpaceX as a comparison solely because they're the other major commercial space company, Falcon 1 carried a commercial payload on its fifth (and last) launch. Falcon 9 had two test flights before its first cargo delivery to the ISS. New Shepard starting earning revenue on its seventh launch.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

I would say 3 or 4, plus maybe a couple extra for geopolitical reasons, small launch is interesting in that a small difference in capacity could put you in a different niche, it also has relatively low market entry cost,

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally.

You are right they won't all survive but investors are looking for the small sat SpaceX. Right now nobody knows who that is so until a dominant leader emerges money will pour into the sector. Eventually the field will consolidate, lots of enterprises will close shop, and a market leader will emerge.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally.

You are right they won't all survive but investors are looking for the small sat SpaceX. Right now nobody knows who that is so until a dominant leader emerges money will pour into the sector. Eventually the field will consolidate, lots of enterprises will close shop, and a market leader will emerge.

plus some of the ones that might not do so well in launch might end up doing well in developing kick stages for payloads riding on BFR type vehicles to get direct or more direct insertion.

people don't seem to be worried about the kessler syndrome. hopefully any potential satellites will have to prove the ability that they can be safely removed at the end of their working life.

Nearly all satellites these days are designed to either be deorbited or boosted to a graveyard orbit. The exception is nanosats, but those are typically low enough density and placed in a sufficiently low orbit that they will deorbit on their own in a few years to decades. There has also been work on passive deorbiting methods and small thrusters to use on them.

people don't seem to be worried about the kessler syndrome. hopefully any potential satellites will have to prove the ability that they can be safely removed at the end of their working life.

Are you talking about the Kessler Syndrome from the movie Gravity?

Or the Kessler Syndrome of reality?

Quote:

The most commonly used orbits for both manned and unmanned space vehicles are low earth orbits, which cover an altitude range low enough for residual air drag to be sufficient to help keep the zone clear. Collisions that occur in this altitude range are also less of an issue because the directions into which the fragments fly and/or their lower specific energy often result in orbits intersecting with earth or having perigee below this altitude.

So I'm assuming New Glenn's 13 Tons to GTO includes revovering the booster, which should put a lot of pressure on Ariane. It would be interesting to know how much can they put out there in expendable mode, or are thery not even considering that?

So I'm assuming New Glenn's 13 Tons to GTO includes revovering the booster, which should put a lot of pressure on Ariane. It would be interesting to know how much can they put out there in expendable mode, or are thery not even considering that?

We only have the old reusable figures; 13 tons GTO, 45 tons LEO. We don't even have reusable figures for the new config with Be-3U second stage.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

How many of these companies are hoping to use the development of a small rocket to bootstrap (is it too early to start using SpaceX as a verb?) themselves into the medium-class range?

So I'm assuming New Glenn's 13 Tons to GTO includes revovering the booster, which should put a lot of pressure on Ariane. It would be interesting to know how much can they put out there in expendable mode, or are thery not even considering that?

BO hasn't ever provided expendable numbers so I doubt they have any plans for it to happen regularly. Maybe as a one off. If they expended the first stage they can probably do 20t maybe 25t to GTO.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

How many of these companies are hoping to use the development of a small rocket to bootstrap (is it too early to start using SpaceX as a verb?) themselves into the medium-class range?

I doubt too many are now, the medium-heavy market is already very crowded and the small is where the big growth is. Commercial GTO demand is actually contracting.EDIT: not to mention Jeff Bezos and his Gigantic Pile of Money are entering the sector.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

How many of these companies are hoping to use the development of a small rocket to bootstrap (is it too early to start using SpaceX as a verb?) themselves into the medium-class range?

Likely not until F9 retires, however production of kick stages for bfr payloads is a potential market. They have to navigate the niches that aren't being dominated by the juggernauts.

This contamination problem cost the SLS rocket several months in delays, and this is one reason why it is widely expected that the rocket's launch date will formally slip from December 2019 to June 2020. Further delays certainly seem possible, given that the core stage all-up test may reveal more issues with the titanic booster.

I feel like there should be some kind of bet on Long Bets on when the SLS will eventually launch and if it will actually have a second launch. Probably throw in something about Block 2, also.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

I would say 3 or 4, plus maybe a couple extra for geopolitical reasons, small launch is interesting in that a small difference in capacity could put you in a different niche, it also has relatively low market entry cost,

Every major space power is going to want at least one from their country/customs union for government use. So you're up to half a dozen before market forces have any effect. I would guess that within five years any companies that don't have a government contact subsidizing their costs, or a billionaire funding them will be out of business

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

I would say 3 or 4, plus maybe a couple extra for geopolitical reasons, small launch is interesting in that a small difference in capacity could put you in a different niche, it also has relatively low market entry cost,

Every major space power is going to want at least one from their country/customs union for government use. So you're up to half a dozen before market forces have any effect. I would guess that within five years any companies that don't have a government contact subsidizing their costs, or a billionaire funding them will be out of business

I'm not sure if major space powers are going to feel strongly about having native small-sat launchers. They definitely do feel that way about having full-sized launchers, which is why the Russian, Chinese, European, and Indian space programs will continue to develop native launch vehicles regardless of the financial justification. But small-sat launchers don't seem to have the same "national security and autonomy" implications.

Just came across this really good article on SpaceX's upcoming recovery efforts, including a breakdown of all its current recovery vessels, what function each one has, and video of the upgraded Mr Steven (with larger net), maneuvering in the Pacific - in reverse!

I didn't know, for example, that each droneship is accompanied by two vessels: a tug boat and a crew ship that leave days ahead of the actual first stage recovery:

Quote:

Apart from the tugboats, a crew boat is also needed to support the droneship recoveries. These vessels house the crew needed to secure the rocket post-landing. The boats also gather telemetry from the booster. [...]

For a typical mission, the droneship will leave port 3-4 days in advance of the landing attempt. The tugboat typically pulls the ASDS at approximately 6-8 knots. The crew boat is capable of traveling at a faster 8-10 knots, and thus sometimes leaves port a few hours after the droneship.

The exciting takeaway for us viewers at home is that there will be five attempted recoveries in the next two weeks. Unfortunately only three of those (the boosters) will likely be webcast, but I imagine that if the fairing makes it footage will be released. I don't think they ever show the Dragon drifting down to splash.

people don't seem to be worried about the kessler syndrome. hopefully any potential satellites will have to prove the ability that they can be safely removed at the end of their working life.

Are you talking about the Kessler Syndrome from the movie Gravity?

Or the Kessler Syndrome of reality?

Quote:

The most commonly used orbits for both manned and unmanned space vehicles are low earth orbits, which cover an altitude range low enough for residual air drag to be sufficient to help keep the zone clear. Collisions that occur in this altitude range are also less of an issue because the directions into which the fragments fly and/or their lower specific energy often result in orbits intersecting with earth or having perigee below this altitude.

Yeah. My enjoyment of that movie has been tamped down over the years by how seriously people took it. It was a fun movie, but about as scientifically accurate as one of those nineteen fifties giant atomic ant movies. I mention that in particular because it was amazing just how seriously the general public took them (also the name of the movie, as it happens). Everybody knew that radiation exposure would give you giant mutated animals -- it's just science!

Gravity was about as accurate as a movie about the Pacific Plastic Patch suddenly expanding to clog all the harbors of every coast on the Pacific.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

I would say 3 or 4, plus maybe a couple extra for geopolitical reasons, small launch is interesting in that a small difference in capacity could put you in a different niche, it also has relatively low market entry cost,

Every major space power is going to want at least one from their country/customs union for government use. So you're up to half a dozen before market forces have any effect. I would guess that within five years any companies that don't have a government contact subsidizing their costs, or a billionaire funding them will be out of business

I'm not sure if major space powers are going to feel strongly about having native small-sat launchers. They definitely do feel that way about having full-sized launchers, which is why the Russian, Chinese, European, and Indian space programs will continue to develop native launch vehicles regardless of the financial justification. But small-sat launchers don't seem to have the same "national security and autonomy" implications.

They want to improve their resiliency. A constellation of small sats is less susceptible to degredation of capabilities due to failure or attack than a few big satellites. Small sat launchers also in theory have a shorter time to launch. All the large launchers have significant lead time.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

I would say 3 or 4, plus maybe a couple extra for geopolitical reasons, small launch is interesting in that a small difference in capacity could put you in a different niche, it also has relatively low market entry cost,

Every major space power is going to want at least one from their country/customs union for government use. So you're up to half a dozen before market forces have any effect. I would guess that within five years any companies that don't have a government contact subsidizing their costs, or a billionaire funding them will be out of business

I'm not sure if major space powers are going to feel strongly about having native small-sat launchers. They definitely do feel that way about having full-sized launchers, which is why the Russian, Chinese, European, and Indian space programs will continue to develop native launch vehicles regardless of the financial justification. But small-sat launchers don't seem to have the same "national security and autonomy" implications.

They want to improve their resiliency. A constellation of small sats is less susceptible to degredation of capabilities due to failure or attack than a few big satellites. Small sat launchers also in theory have a shorter time to launch. All the large launchers have significant lead time.

If there are enough competing small-sat launchers, you don't need to roll your own to assure this. And if all but one or two of the small-sat launchers die, they evidently it wasn't a significant enough portion of the market for anyone (including nation-states) to care about.

How hard would it be for SpaceX to revive a Falcon 1 with the updated Merlin to satisfy the launch-on-demand capability that the government is looking for? It would certainly help keep their manufacturing lines busy in between the BFR development and Falcon 9 coast phase (where a number of block 5's are built and being reused).

I'm not sure it would be any more cost effective then some of the other providers, just that they already have a manufacturing infrastructure in place. Most likely, there's not enough money in it for them, but it might be an interesting side business to keep Boca Chica busy.

How hard would it be for SpaceX to revive a Falcon 1 with the updated Merlin to satisfy the launch-on-demand capability that the government is looking for? It would certainly help keep their manufacturing lines busy in between the BFR development and Falcon 9 coast phase (where a number of block 5's are built and being reused).

I'm not sure it would be any more cost effective then some of the other providers, just that they already have a manufacturing infrastructure in place. Most likely, there's not enough money in it for them, but it might be an interesting side business to keep Boca Chica busy.

I would think the whole idea of the F9 Block 5 with 24 hour turn around means that if you have a couple out in the old warehouse (which appears to be the plan involving even more), getting one up and running for launch on demand is not going to be an issue.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

I would say 3 or 4, plus maybe a couple extra for geopolitical reasons, small launch is interesting in that a small difference in capacity could put you in a different niche, it also has relatively low market entry cost,

Every major space power is going to want at least one from their country/customs union for government use. So you're up to half a dozen before market forces have any effect. I would guess that within five years any companies that don't have a government contact subsidizing their costs, or a billionaire funding them will be out of business

I'm not sure if major space powers are going to feel strongly about having native small-sat launchers. They definitely do feel that way about having full-sized launchers, which is why the Russian, Chinese, European, and Indian space programs will continue to develop native launch vehicles regardless of the financial justification. But small-sat launchers don't seem to have the same "national security and autonomy" implications.

They want to improve their resiliency. A constellation of small sats is less susceptible to degredation of capabilities due to failure or attack than a few big satellites. Small sat launchers also in theory have a shorter time to launch. All the large launchers have significant lead time.

The key thing is a medium lift rocket can also lift small sats (or even a fleet of small sats) but a small rocket can't lift medium sats. That means I don't see many nations giving small sat providers the ULA subsidy train unless that nation has no other launch capabilities.

If you are going to subsidize a launcher you might as well subsidize the one that can do everything.

Contributes to delays... This contamination problem cost the SLS rocket several months in delays, and this is one reason why it is widely expected that the rocket's launch date will formally slip from December 2019 to June 2020.

Traces of beef detected in the pork?

Quote:

Further delays certainly seem possible, given that the core stage all-up test may reveal more issues with the titanic booster.

Hard to make predictions, especially about the future, but if was a betting man...

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

I would say 3 or 4, plus maybe a couple extra for geopolitical reasons, small launch is interesting in that a small difference in capacity could put you in a different niche, it also has relatively low market entry cost,

Every major space power is going to want at least one from their country/customs union for government use. So you're up to half a dozen before market forces have any effect. I would guess that within five years any companies that don't have a government contact subsidizing their costs, or a billionaire funding them will be out of business

I'm not sure if major space powers are going to feel strongly about having native small-sat launchers. They definitely do feel that way about having full-sized launchers, which is why the Russian, Chinese, European, and Indian space programs will continue to develop native launch vehicles regardless of the financial justification. But small-sat launchers don't seem to have the same "national security and autonomy" implications.

They want to improve their resiliency. A constellation of small sats is less susceptible to degredation of capabilities due to failure or attack than a few big satellites. Small sat launchers also in theory have a shorter time to launch. All the large launchers have significant lead time.

That's the problem I have with a lot of the smaller launchers. I can see a major increase in the number of smaller LEO sats for things like SpaceX's starlink service but when you are talking about a constellation of sats you are much better off going the Iridium route and doing a multi-sat launch on something like an F9 than a bunch of single launches on a small launcher. So how much work will there be in small and micro sats that aren't part of constellation. I'm not sure but it seems to me like a much smaller and much less stable market than just small sats to LEO.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

I see it as, "I can't really afford to build a big rocket, but I could build a little one." So tens of companies around the world are all aiming low to try and get their collective feet in the door. No doubt most of these will fail.

That time-lapse image makes it look like there is some sort of orbital energy weapon firing on that site...

I'm struggling to see a market for small satellite launches that justifies current investment globally. The number of people wanting a launcher that isn't a piggy back on a bigger launcher may grow as costs go down, but I don't think it will grow as much as launch capacity. "Build it and they will come" only goes so far, and I think New Glenn and Falcon + say 2 smaller independent launchers may be that limit.

I would say 3 or 4, plus maybe a couple extra for geopolitical reasons, small launch is interesting in that a small difference in capacity could put you in a different niche, it also has relatively low market entry cost,

Every major space power is going to want at least one from their country/customs union for government use. So you're up to half a dozen before market forces have any effect. I would guess that within five years any companies that don't have a government contact subsidizing their costs, or a billionaire funding them will be out of business

I'm not sure if major space powers are going to feel strongly about having native small-sat launchers. They definitely do feel that way about having full-sized launchers, which is why the Russian, Chinese, European, and Indian space programs will continue to develop native launch vehicles regardless of the financial justification. But small-sat launchers don't seem to have the same "national security and autonomy" implications.

They want to improve their resiliency. A constellation of small sats is less susceptible to degredation of capabilities due to failure or attack than a few big satellites. Small sat launchers also in theory have a shorter time to launch. All the large launchers have significant lead time.

That's the problem I have with a lot of the smaller launchers. I can see a major increase in the number of smaller LEO sats for things like SpaceX's starlink service but when you are talking about a constellation of sats you are much better off going the Iridium route and doing a multi-sat launch on something like an F9 than a bunch of single launches on a small launcher. So how much work will there be in small and micro sats that aren't part of constellation. I'm not sure but it seems to me like a much smaller and much less stable market than just small sats to LEO.

Small-sat launchers will still have their place in the design and maintenance of LEO constellations, both to let you test out the satellite under real-world conditions before building a hundred of them and paying for a suite of full-scale launches and to replace individual failed satellites quickly and cheaply. You're right that the bulk of the constellations won't be lifted with small-sat launchers, though.

How hard would it be for SpaceX to revive a Falcon 1 with the updated Merlin to satisfy the launch-on-demand capability that the government is looking for? It would certainly help keep their manufacturing lines busy in between the BFR development and Falcon 9 coast phase (where a number of block 5's are built and being reused).

I'm not sure it would be any more cost effective then some of the other providers, just that they already have a manufacturing infrastructure in place. Most likely, there's not enough money in it for them, but it might be an interesting side business to keep Boca Chica busy.

It strikes me as a dubious proposition. They'd need to spin up all the manufacturing of everything except the Merlin from scratch again, and the 1st stage would almost certainly require design changes to support the current Merlin D producing almost double the thrust of the early models the F1 used. OTOH the upgrade to Merlin 1D might get F1 enough performance to reach the govts reuse goals, it's otherwise much too small, at ~1500lbs payload vs a goal of 3000 for the XS1 program.

They'd probably also need to build launch facilities in the US because Kwajalein is heavily booked for existing govt operations making slotting them in problematical. not to mention being in the middle of nowhere would make storing and maintaining the rockets a much more expensive proposition than somewhere in the US collocated with their existing facilities. And that assumes SpaceX would even be interested in a low revenue pork program that doesn't further any of their other goals.